Is Ron Paul's boat in Iowa being raised by Obama fans out to cause mischief?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Some in Iowa think so. I think it may be a bit paranoid myself, but this is kind of the paranoid season these days. If that paranoia leads to killing the caucus circus however, that is the kind of paranoia I like! 

What do you mean "a bit"?

Not surprised you like this kind of paranoia, but wonder what other forms of that malady you "like"?

I'm sorry CARL, but your post makes zero sense to me. The last bit was just a bon mot. Get used to them - I do them a lot.

Torie,

Let me try another example.

One plus one equals two. 

That assertions probably makes "zero sense" to you!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A Paul win could be good for Romney. Romney would probably still win NH. He'd get the votes of some voters who aren't thrilled about Romney but really don't like Paul. Meanwhile there'd be some anti-Romney & Paul candidate so Paul wouldn't get all of the anti-Romney support. The more opponents, the better for Romney. 

If Paul wins Iowa, and Romney is 2nd, buy Romney.

[Eraserhead]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

[memphis]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

[Link]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

I don't agree.  There are definitely areas of overlap.  Frankly there are a lot of areas of overlap between a lot of Democrats and Republicans if you take the partisan hype out of the equation.

Ron Paul is for legalizing drugs and prostitution.  He believes the government should get out of the marriage business.  Actually his views on that are to the left of Obama!  I know I know Obama's views are "evolving."  Come to think of it Ron Paul's views on drug legalization and prostitution are also to the left of Obama.  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

[SmugDealer]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

[memphis]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

I don't agree.  There are definitely areas of overlap.  Frankly there are a lot of areas of overlap between a lot of Democrats and Republicans if you take the partisan hype out of the equation.

Ron Paul is for legalizing drugs and prostitution.  He believes the government should get out of the marriage business.  Actually his views on that are to the left of Obama!  I know I know Obama's views are "evolving."  Come to think of it Ron Paul's views on drug legalization and prostitution are also to the left of Obama.  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Right. Obama and Paul don't agree. That's my whole point. Supporting both makes no sense.

[Link]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

I don't agree.  There are definitely areas of overlap.  Frankly there are a lot of areas of overlap between a lot of Democrats and Republicans if you take the partisan hype out of the equation.

Ron Paul is for legalizing drugs and prostitution.  He believes the government should get out of the marriage business.  Actually his views on that are to the left of Obama!  I know I know Obama's views are "evolving."  Come to think of it Ron Paul's views on drug legalization and prostitution are also to the left of Obama.  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Right. Obama and Paul don't agree. That's my whole point. Supporting both makes no sense.

You voted for Obama in '08 because of all the candidates offered up he was the one that would tell the justice department to lay off Cali.  If they want to sell medical marijuana don't get in a huff and prosecute them.  Three years later Paul comes along.  He takes some Obama policies to the next level, but he is unelectable.  So you like Paul but you vote for the guy that can actually get elected... Obama.

I actually really like some of Paul's views.  I recognize a lot of his views are interesting in an academic sense but unworkable in real life.  On the other hand I find some of his proposals anything from amusing to disturbing.  I support him because he adds a unique voice to the conversation.  I don't think he can or should be president though.

[memphis]

Ok, I see what you're saying. Marijuana laws are dumb (for a number of reasons). And while nobody expected Obama to turn into Cheech once he was elected, it was reasonable to expect him to be more chill around the edges (like with the medical stuff) that he has been or the mainstream Republicans have been. And it's kind of cool that in this age of polling and cynicism that somebody like Ron Paul comes along, and he doesn't really care that's its politically unpopular to oppose marijuana laws. He really does stand for what he believes in. He has principles in contrast to most politicians. And that's great and I give him credit for that.
All that said, you have to look at a candidate in aggregate. I think it's awesome that he opposes marijuna laws. However.
1. He opposes Medicare.
2. He wants to let younger workers opt of out Social Security, which would, in the real world, completely defund and destroy this most vital government program.
3. He wants the US to leave the United Nations.
4. He voted to put a wall up between Mexico and the United States.
5. He wants to abolish the income tax and fund the government through tariffs and excise taxes.
6.  He introduced personhood legislation that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, something even people in MS rejected.
7.He supports don't ask don't tell.
8. He is a climate change denier.
9. He has opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
10. He would like to see prayer back in schools.
11. He voted for Bush's anti-gay marriage amendment.
12. He doesn't think citizens should have the right to elect their Senators.
So, once again, it's great that he's honest when most politicians are not. And it's cool that he thinks we shouldn't be locking up people on drugs. I think I could find things I agree on with most people. However, in aggregate Paul's positions are a heaping pile of sh!t. And I think any Obama voter should be able to see that. But maybe they can't.

[Oakvale]

Ok, I see what you're saying. Marijuana laws are dumb (for a number of reasons). And while nobody expected Obama to turn into Cheech once he was elected, it was reasonable to expect him to be more chill around the edges (like with the medical stuff) that he has been or the mainstream Republicans have been. And it's kind of cool that in this age of polling and cynicism that somebody like Ron Paul comes along, and he doesn't really care that's its politically unpopular to oppose marijuana laws. He really does stand for what he believes in. He has principles in contrast to most politicians. And that's great and I give him credit for that.
All that said, you have to look at a candidate in aggregate. I think it's awesome that he opposes marijuna laws. However.
1. He opposes Medicare.
2. He wants to let younger workers opt of out Social Security, which would, in the real world, completely defund and destroy this most vital government program.
3. He wants the US to leave the United Nations.
4. He voted to put a wall up between Mexico and the United States.
5. He wants to abolish the income tax and fund the government through tariffs and excise taxes.
6.  He introduced personhood legislation that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, something even people in MS rejected.
7.He supports don't ask don't tell.
8. He is a climate change denier.
9. He has opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
10. He would like to see prayer back in schools.
11. He voted for Bush's anti-gay marriage amendment.
12. He doesn't think citizens should have the right to elect their Senators.
So, once again, it's great that he's honest when most politicians are not. And it's cool that he thinks we shouldn't be locking up people on drugs. I think I could find things I agree on with most people. However, in aggregate Paul's positions are a heaping pile of sh!t. And I think any Obama voter should be able to see that. But maybe they can't.

Excellent post. This is why I always find it strange that people insist Paul would win Democratic support in the general election.

[BigSkyBob]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

[memphis]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

When the last time somebody was raped because of marijuana? I believe alcohol is the more typical drug men use to get women to sleep with them.

[Link]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

Errr... I'm pretty sure perfectly legal alchohol has been implicated in a lot more date rape situtions than Rohypnol.  Where do you guys get this hyperbolic nonsense?

[Link]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

When the last time somebody was raped because of marijuana? I believe alcohol is the more typical drug men use to get women to sleep with them.

Beat me by about 40 seconds.  That was a guaranteed sh-t starter.  To be fair alcohol has been used by fat chicks to get otherwise sensible guys to do things they later regret on a much more epic scale

[Link]

However, in aggregate Paul's positions are a heaping pile of sh!t.

Never denied this.

[Person Man]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

...Pot. lol.

[BigSkyBob]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

When the last time somebody was raped because of marijuana? I believe alcohol is the more typical drug men use to get women to sleep with them.

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Now, you are free to argue that since alcohol is legal, and marijuana is readily available we just have to conclude that the horse if out of the barn, and Pandora is out of her box. so we might as well let men buy Rohypnol with legal impunity.

Is that your argument?

[BigSkyBob]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

Errr... I'm pretty sure perfectly legal alchohol has been implicated in a lot more date rape situtions than Rohypnol.  Where do you guys get this hyperbolic nonsense?

Umm, women, generally, know when they are drinking alcohol. Rohypnol is colorless, tasteless, and odorless.

Again, you are free to argue that since thousands of women may very well be raped, annually, after [voluntarily] consuming alcohol we just have to throw our hands up and state that since, "The horse is out of the barn. Pandora is out of the box. And, the Rubicon has been crossed" on date rape we should turn a blind eye to men buying Rohypnol.

Is that your argument?

[Link]

  Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

When the last time somebody was raped because of marijuana? I believe alcohol is the more typical drug men use to get women to sleep with them.

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Now, you are free to argue that since alcohol is legal, and marijuana is readily available we just have to conclude that the horse if out of the barn, and Pandora is out of her box. so we might as well let men buy Rohypnol with legal impunity.

Is that your argument?

Rohypnol is one drug.  I personally have never considered date rape a huge problem as far as illicit drug use in America.  But then again I don't watch many ABC after school specials.

Guns are used in murders and robberies.  Do you think all of them should be banned?

Get a grip.

[Link]

 Some of Paul's views are so right wing they end up being far left!  If that makes any sense.

Just shows that right/left is overly simplistic.

I still don't understand the distinction that's made between regulating fattening food vs. drugs. It's left-wing to regulate fattening food, but right-wing to regulate drugs?

They're both harmful to the individual, and to society as a whole. They're both marketed to kids to get them hooked early. They both can make people disgusting and unbearable to be around. And both, in moderation, can be enjoyed by anyone with a modicum of self control without suffering the fatal consequences.

So why is one a left-wing predilection to regulate and the other a right-wing one?

When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being feed french fries? When is the last time you read reports of women being raped by their dates after being drugged with Rohypnol?

Errr... I'm pretty sure perfectly legal alchohol has been implicated in a lot more date rape situtions than Rohypnol.  Where do you guys get this hyperbolic nonsense?

Umm, women, generally, know when they are drinking alcohol. Rohypnol is colorless, tasteless, and odorless.

Why does it matter if you know what you are drinking?  Gee I got raped but since I know what I was drinking that makes it a lot better!

Where do you get this stuff?

[Link]

Again, you are free to argue that since thousands of women may very well be raped, annually, after [voluntarily] consuming alcohol we just have to throw our hands up and state that since, "The horse is out of the barn. Pandora is out of the box. And, the Rubicon has been crossed" on date rape we should turn a blind eye to men buying Rohypnol.

whoa.

[Link]

I am pointing out the absurdity of asserting a moral equality between regulating french fries and Rohypnol. They are different in kind.

Well logic appeals to people like me a lot more than right wing "morals."  If you step back and look at it you can make a pretty good case that in and of itself the piss poor American diet does more harm to the country than illicit drugs especially if you eliminate a lot of the ill effects brought on by Reagan's dumb @$$ war on drugs.

Fact #1 the majority of adults in America are overweight or obese.
Fact #2 the majority of women and men have not been date raped using Rohypnol.

The right wing bogeymen that your masters use to keep you servile don't impress me.  I know what the real threats are.

[memphis]

Putting any kind of frug on somebody's drink is a completely different thing than choosing it for yourself. That said, anybody know what chemicals McDonalds has been putting in your food? It's not a pretty question.

[memphis]

I think a lot of the Obama people (or ex-Obama people) supporting him there find him legitimately charming.

Thing is, supporting Obama and Paul makes no sense whatsoever. Their policies are mutually exclusive. But people are fools, so whatever.

...Pot. lol.

Impressive rebuttal...

[BigSkyBob]

Again, you are free to argue that since thousands of women may very well be raped, annually, after [voluntarily] consuming alcohol we just have to throw our hands up and state that since, "The horse is out of the barn. Pandora is out of the box. And, the Rubicon has been crossed" on date rape we should turn a blind eye to men buying Rohypnol.

whoa.

Well, we were talking about drugs versus fast food, and, you decided to interject alcohol. Your point was, again?